Utah Code
Utah Code § 76-2-101 (2026)
Requirements of criminal conduct and criminal responsibility
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
UT-LEGle.utah.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A person is not guilty of an offense unless the person's conduct is prohibited by law; and
the person acts intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, with criminal negligence, or with a mental state otherwise specified in the statute defining the offense, as the definition of the offense requires; or
the person's acts constitute an offense involving strict liability.
These standards of criminal responsibility do not apply to the violations set forth in Title 41, Chapter 6a, Traffic Code, unless specifically provided by law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases, 1977–2020 · leading case: State v. Moore, 782 P.2d 497 (Utah 1989).
State v. Moore, 782 P.2d 497 (Utah 1989). “" Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-101 (1) (Supp. 1989).”
State v. Chavez, 605 P.2d 1226 (Utah 1979). “Section 76-2-101 of the Criminal Code now extant, and applicable in this case, provides: No person is guilty of an offense unless his conduct is prohibited by law and: (1) He acts intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence with respect to each element of…”
State v. Bolsinger, 699 P.2d 1214 (Utah 1985). “2d 1042 (1984), we held the proper subjective mental state under that subsection to be "knowing," one of four possible categories of mens rea required to prove criminal responsibility under section 76-2-101(1). [3] Section 76-2-103 states: A person engages in conduct: .”
State v. Elton, 680 P.2d 727 (Utah 1984). “At the time in question, § 76-2-101 stated: No person is guilty of an offense unless his conduct is prohibited by law and: (1) He acts intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence with respect to each element of the offense as the definition of the offense…”
State v. Herrera, 1999 UT 64 (Utah 1999). “NOTES [1] "[A] crime consists in the concurrence of prohibited conduct [the bad act] and a culpable mental state [the mens rea].”
State v. Marchet, 2009 UT App 262 (Utah Ct. App. 2009). “Utah Code section 76-2-101(1) provides the necessary mental state: "A person is not guilty of an offense unless the person's conduct is prohibited by law[ ] and .”
State v. Vigil, 2019 UT App 131 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “But although these changes may have improved the instructions, Instruction 28 adequately explained the mens rea required under the statute by providing that Defendant must have acted “[k]nowingly or intentionally, and with intent to hinder, delay,” etcetera.”
State v. Martinez, 2002 UT 80 (Utah 2002). “2d 727, 728 (Utah 1984); see also Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-101 (2001). 8 . Defendant spends a portion of his argument discussing several cases in which Alaska appellate courts refused to read strict liability into the statutory rape statute on the grounds that "a refusal to allow…”
State v. Bird, 2012 UT App 239 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). “Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-101 (2008) (emphasis added).”
State v. Barela, 2015 UT 22 (Utah 2015). “4 See UTAH CODE § 76-2-101(1) (“A person is not guilty of an of- fense unless the person’s conduct is prohibited by law; and the per- son acts intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, with criminal negli- gence, or with a mental state otherwise specified in the statute de- fining…”
State v. Lebeau, 2014 UT 39 (Utah 2014). “at 293 ; see also UTAH CODE § 76-2-101(1) (establishing that a defendant must act with at least criminal negligence to be guilty of an offense).”
State v. Vigil, 842 P.2d 843 (Utah 1992). “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-101 (1) ("[N]o person is guilty of an offense unless his [or her] conduct is prohibited by law and .”
— Utah Code § 76-2-101(1) — 10 cases
State v. Bolsinger, 699 P.2d 1214 (Utah 1985). “2d 1042 (1984), we held the proper subjective mental state under that subsection to be "knowing," one of four possible categories of mens rea required to prove criminal responsibility under section 76-2-101(1). [3] Section 76-2-103 states: A person engages in conduct: .”
State v. Marchet, 2009 UT App 262 (Utah Ct. App. 2009). “Utah Code section 76-2-101(1) provides the necessary mental state: "A person is not guilty of an offense unless the person's conduct is prohibited by law[ ] and .”
State v. Elton, 680 P.2d 727 (Utah 1984). “At the time in question, § 76-2-101 stated: No person is guilty of an offense unless his conduct is prohibited by law and: (1) He acts intentionally, knowingly, recklessly or with criminal negligence with respect to each element of the offense as the definition of the offense…”
State v. Barela, 2015 UT 22 (Utah 2015). “4 See UTAH CODE § 76-2-101(1) (“A person is not guilty of an of- fense unless the person’s conduct is prohibited by law; and the per- son acts intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, with criminal negli- gence, or with a mental state otherwise specified in the statute de- fining…”
State v. Lebeau, 2014 UT 39 (Utah 2014). “at 293 ; see also UTAH CODE § 76-2-101(1) (establishing that a defendant must act with at least criminal negligence to be guilty of an offense).”
— Utah Code § 76-2-101(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Vigil, 2019 UT App 131 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “But although these changes may have improved the instructions, Instruction 28 adequately explained the mens rea required under the statute by providing that Defendant must have acted “[k]nowingly or intentionally, and with intent to hinder, delay,” etcetera.”
— Utah Code § 76-2-101(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Bird, 2012 UT App 239 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). “Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-101 (2008) (emphasis added).”
— Utah Code § 76-2-101(2) — 2 cases
State v. Bird, 2015 UT 7 (Utah 2015).
State v. Bird, 2012 UT App 239 (Utah Ct. App. 2012). “Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-101 (2008) (emphasis added).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.